review-writing

review-writing — review prose in its own register

Report where a text departs from the writing standard that governs it. Review only: you find and explain, the author decides and edits.

Input

$ARGUMENTS carries what to review — a file path, a directory, a glob, or pasted text. It may also name a register explicitly (register=docs, register=voice) to override detection. A manifest gate's body activates this skill with a register under the run's selected evaluator; the gate names the register and this skill owns the threshold.

With no argument, review the most recently modified prose file in the working tree and say which one you picked. If that is ambiguous or nothing prose-shaped has changed, ask what to review rather than guessing.

Registers and thresholds

Two registers, mutually exclusive. Each has its own rules, and applying the wrong set produces findings the author should ignore — which costs more than reviewing nothing. The threshold is the bar a text must clear to PASS in that register:

Each register brings the shared floor with it: ../define/references/PROSE-FLOOR-REFERENCE.md holds the rules common to both, including the accessibility and inclusive-language floors, and a finding from the floor is graded and reported on the same footing as one from the register. There is no separate floor-only invocation.

The two thresholds sit at the same grade and still mean different things, because each register's severity anchor measures its own reader-facing cost — usability of documentation, or loss of meaning and intended voice in authored prose. Grade by the anchor of the register you applied, and never convert a finding from one scale to the other.